GOOD Magazine
Yesterday in the NYT, Sharon Waxman took an indulgent look at GOOD Magazine, the new magazine founded on the desire to improve the country with good works and the exhortation to those at the top to use their affluence and access for the common good. The WSJ had the backstory earlier this summer, detailing how founder Ben Goldhirsh took his inheritance to fund the mag after losing his father, Inc. founder Bernie Goldhirsch, to brain cancer, only a few years after losing his mother to cancer as well. The first issue is out and has some heft behind it; New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki think-pieces on America's popularity, Neal Pollock writes on the financial realities of modern parenthood and contrasts it with what existed when he was a child (also pleasing New Yorkers with a mini-diss on L.A.), Jeffrey Sachs on fighting poverty, and Russian writer Gary Shteyngart on why he likes the U.S.A. (Capitalism is up there, natch). That last one isn't an irony; the do-GOODers aren't out to tax away the hard-earned inheritances of its readers, but rather to emphasize a socially-conscious agenda into the realities of high achievers across the board.
Waxman's GOOD coverage stays away from Goldhirsh's sad story, which was the focus of the WSJ piece, and instead focuses on the neophyte magazine-makers who wave away the details with big ideas (they've eschewed any sort of magazine-expert consultancy; though ETP will note that they do have a publicist). The NYT also notes the pedigree of the staff (the rather blatantly named Albert Gore III is associate publisher) and the audience (the rather blatantly misspelled Kurt Andersen gives the concept the thumbs-up (note that the spelling of his name from yesterday has still not been corrected online).
A little commentary: It's amazing how an earnest, menschliness-first magazine concept invites detractors. Gawker reviewed GOOD last week, dismissing most of the content and saying "Lord, does the earnestness get grating." (They also say that they're not sure what Goldhirsh is paying per word, but that's no secret: On Shteyngart's piece they confirm that it's $2. ETP should note here, however, that we don't know if it's in the print version, which we've only flipped through; our online bias is showing). However, someone else's bias is showing: Regular Gawker readers would have expected a nasty review, given that Gawker had trashed GOOD's concept and founders long before the mag was in print. This was how Gawker wrote off the WSJ article detailing Ben Goldhirsh's loss of his father and struggle to figure out how to use his inheritance in a meaningful way:
Ben inherited a large chunk of change from his pop with the intention that he do something entrepreneurial. Ben's come up with Good, a magazine for rich kids who've inherited large chunks of change and need help in figuring out how to give it away.
They followed up with a mocking mock-up of a GOOD cover, with the tagline "Pat Yourself On The Back, You Rich Bastard, You're GOOD" and coverlines like "The Eternal Dilemma: Can You Spend It Faster Than Dad Made It?" Let's recall that this is in direct reference to a guy who lost both of his parents to cancer and is now an orphan. Goldhirsh would probably have preferred not to have had to make such a choice, but in any case using his inheritance to make a go of something that aims to make a difference seems a far cry from 'spending it faster than dad made it.' GOOD is not perfect; the website could use some work (you can't even find a cover image on it, and they've got to get their HTML characters down) but the contributions seem impressive thus far, the blog is newsy and useful (though needs to take better care with stating rumor as fact) and they seem to have some good ideas to match their good intentions. Not a bad example, considering what else is out there.
*Let the record reflect that Gawker can't help being GOOD itself sometimes, which we always notice, and appreciate.
